How To: Win Any Debate

2- Straw man: In this argument, “the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position — the ‘straw man’ — not held by his opponent.” This is typically achieved by inaccurately restating the opponent’s position in such a way as to make it easier to knock down. Often, this is achieved by seeking out something extreme.

Example: You’re arguing about the government’s military spending, which you believe to be excessive and should be cut back. Your opponent says, “Where would that money be better spent — on repaving the interstate system? I just don’t think our country would be better off defenseless and vulnerable to terrorists, but that’s just me.”

It’s easy to knock down an argument that favors a defenseless, vulnerable country, but you were not (presumably) arguing in favor of these things. Instead your opponent put up an extreme misrepresentation of your side and very easily knocked it down. 3- Slippery slope: The arguer will make the “mistake of confusing coincidence with causation,” generally by using your argument as a basis for their argument, then proceeding through a series of consequences that would occur if your argument were true. Their conclusion will be the most dire of all consequences, which they would then equate with your argument as a means of invalidating it.

Example: You’re arguing in favor of legalized abortions, and your opponent says, “By permitting abortion, more and more women will get abortions. Soon an abortion will be a procedure so common that it will require no more than a five-minute visit with a doctor. In time, society will develop such indifference to human life that it will affect laws on homicide, which will soften to the point where the taking of a human life is not even considered a serious felony. To avoid that travesty, abortion should not be permitted.”

Who said anything about homicides or felonies? Furthermore, your opponent has offered a number of premises you didn’t agree with, and he’s using them to draw his conclusion.

4- Begging the question: An argument that “assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.” In this fallacy, people typically slip their conclusion into one of their premises — one reason, among others, that you should agree on those premises first, as mentioned in an earlier section. The example outlined above concerning the president and oil companies can be considered an instance of begging the question.

Note: The term “begging the question” has been adopted into our everyday vernacular and diluted to mean something different than it does in logic. When you hear someone say, “So this begs the question” and they follow that with a question, they are using the term literally, as in “this statement begs us to ask the following question,” and it does not share any characteristics with the original fallacy.

Redefine what it means to win

To win any debate, be flexible about winning. If you’re arguing with someone over the existence of God, for example, you have virtually no hope of changing the mind of your opponent, no matter how logically or vehemently you make your case.

At best, focus on presenting your side as coherently as possible, so that in the end you can at the very least be proud of your performance. If in the process you happen to alter some of your opponents’ perceptions, even better.

argue smart

When debating or arguing with another person, it’s easy to become heated. Your own arguments will suffer, but letting your emotions take over has a more dire consequence: You stop listening to your opponent. Neither logic nor reality are always perfect; the more you allow him to talk, and the closer you listen to him, the greater the chances he’ll make all sorts of mistakes — and these are your pouncing points. Let him unwittingly give you as many as he possibly can.